Giving Corrective Feedback:
A Decisional Analysis
T HEADVANTAGESofhelpfulfeed-
back in improving employees'
work performance have been well docu-
mented (Kopelman, 1982-1983;Mento,
Steel, & Karren, 1987; Nadler, 1979).
Effective feedback serves two major
functions: It instructs by helping to
clarify deviations between preferred
and actual behavior, and it motivates
by increasing the desire to perform
well to gain intrinsic or extrinsic re-
wards or to avoid penalties (Ilgen,
Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Kopelman,
1982-1983; Nadler, 1979).
Despite these advantages, research
indicates that although most super-
visors believe they give adequate feed-
back to their employees, their em-
ployees think otherwise (Ilgen et al.,
1979; Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, &
Boeschen, 1981). In a survey of 60
matched pairs ofsupervisors and sub-
ordinates in a northwestern indus-
try, Ilgen et al. (1981) found that
supervisors were more likely than
were their subordinates to think that
they gave frequent, specific, immedi-
ate, and considerate feedback. A re-
cent unpublished survey by the au-
thor yielded similar findings; about
half (48 percent) the 198 surveyed
employees of a southwestern social
services organization thought that
their supervisors gave them feedback
less than "often" (Latting, 1990).
Because person-to-person interac-
tion is fundamental to the social work
process, supervisors are often as-
sumed to have good communication
skills, and hence training in effective
feedback is not usually provided, par-
ticularly in social services settings. If
such training is provided, it usually
includes several rules for giving effec-
tive feedback that are based on the
current literature on Inanagement
training. According to these rules,
feedback must be specific, accurate,
objective, timely, usable, desired by
the receiver, and checked for under-
424 CCC Code: 0037-8046/92 $3.00 © 1992, National Association of Social Workers, Inc.
Jean Kantambu Latting lines may also apply to other dyadic
relationships, such as co-worker-co-
The advantages of effective feedback worker, parent-child, spouse-spouse,
in improving the quantity and quality or friend-friend relationships.
of employees' performance have been Feedback is often classified as posi-
well documented. Despite these ad- tive or negative. Karp's (l987)termi-
vantages, ineffective feedback in the nology ofsupportive or corrective feed-
workplace is often the norm. If pro- back is preferred here because even
vided at all, training on how to give corrective feedback may be viewed as
feedback usually includes a limited positive ifit is offered helpfully (Egan,
set ofrules based on the current litera- 1985). Supportive feedback is given
ture on management training. This when the supervisor "catches the em-
article presents a more complete set of ployee doing something right"
guidelines for giving corrective feed- (Blanchard & Johnson, 1982) to rein-
back in four categories: (1) deciding force the achievement of a goal or
whether to give corrective feedback, progress in doing so. Corrective feed-
(2) deciding what to say when giving back identifies a discrepancy be-
the feedback, (3) deciding how and tween existing and desired goals or
when to give the feedback, and (4) behaviors. The intent is to encourage
deciding how to handle the receiver's the receiver of feedback to improve
response. Theoretical and empirical his or her performance by eliminat-
bases for each guideline are provided. ing the discrepancy. This article fo-
cuses on corrective feedback because
most people find it more difficult to
standing (see Hanson, 1975; Karp, correct undesirable behavior than to
1987; Michaelsen & Schultheiss, support desirable behavior (Rosen &
1988-1989). Tesser, 1971).
Despite the guidance they provide, The remainder of this article pre-
the rules have three limitations: (1) sents 12 guidelines for giving correc-
they give only perfunctory guidance tive feedback. These guidelines are
on when not to give feedback and classified into four decisional catego-
none on how to handle the receiver's ries: (1) deciding whether to give cor-
response, (2) their theoretical bases rective feedback, (2) deciding what to
are not usually presented, and (3) say when giving the feedback, (3) de-
they do not encompass more recent ciding how and when to give the feed-
empirical findings regarding condi- back, and (4) deciding how to handle
tions under which feedback is more the receiver's response (see Table 1
likely to be favorably received and for a summary).
acted on. Lacking this foundation,
supervisors may apply the suggested
Deciding Whether to Give
rules globally or simplistically.
Corrective Feedback
This article seeks to correct these
deficiencies by providing human ser- The first decision is whether to give
vices supervisors with a decisional set corrective feedback at all. This deci-
ofguidelines for offeringcorrective feed- sion is based on the supervisor's as-
back to employees. The guidelines are sessment of his or her standing with
buttressed by a discussion of support- the employee, the supervisor's motives
ing theories and empirical research. for giving the feedback, the employee's
Although supervisor-employee rela- ability and willingness to take action,
tionships are the focal point, the guide- and the organization's reward system.
 Table 1. ing information. Do not attempt to dis-
12 Guidelines for Giving Corrective Feedback guise your feedback as corrective ifyour
true intent is to control, to express ag-
Deciding Whether to Give Corrective Feedback gression, or tojustify your actions. Use
1. Assess your standing as a credible, trustworthy source before giving corrective feedback. a conflict-resolution method ifyour in-
2. Give corrective feedback only if your underlying motive is to help by providing informa- tent is to confront. In deciding whether
tion. Do not attempt to disguise your feedback as corrective if your true intent is to
control, to express aggression, or to justify your actions. Use a conflict-resolution method to give corrective feedback, you should
if your intent is to confront. assess your own motives for doing so.
3. Give corrective feedback only if the receiver is likely to be able and willing to take Too often, critical feedback is given as
appropriate action. a substitute for aggression against the
4. Consider whether the organizational system is likely to reward the desired behavior
before you give corrective feedback. other, as a disguised means of control,
as a rationalization for unfair deci-
Deciding What to Say sions, or as a justification for existing
5. Describe the problem behavior. Avoid attributions.
6. Explain the consequences of the behavior and your feelings about it.
powerrelationships (Bartolome, 1986-
7. Provide sufficient specific information so the receiver may become self-correcting, but not 1987). Any of these motives is likely to
so much information as to be redundant. be detected and resented by the re-
8. Emphasize desired, not undesired, behaviors. ceiveroffeedbackand to result in with-
Deciding How and When to Give Feedback drawals from the employee's emotional
9. Give corrective feedback in a considerate tone of voice using "1" rather than "you" bank account.
messages. A more difficult task is to distinguish
10. Give corrective feedback privately and immediately, rather than publicly and belatedly. between confrontation and corrective
Deciding How to Handle the Receiver's Response feedback. As Egan (1975) explained,
11. Ask for reactions; be willing to be influenced. unskilled helpers often perceive them-
12. Seek agreement that a problem exists. selves as offering feedback to be help-
ful when they actually are engaged in
confrontation. The purpose of correc-
Guideline 1 visor acts arbitrarily, threatens or tive feedback is to provide information
berates the subordinate, or "plays about a discrepancy between the
Assess your standing as a credible, little tin god" (p. 188). receiver's ownvalues and behaviorwith
trustworthy source before giving cor- Corrective feedback is likely to be the intent of helping the receiver to
rective feedback. Feedbackis more likely poorly received from a supervisor meet his or her own goals and stan-
to be perceived accurately, accepted, whose withdrawals from the em- dards. If the discrepancy is between
and acted on ifthe giver is perceived as ployee's emotional bank account have the sender's and the recipient's values
credible and trustworthy (Bannister, exceeded the deposits. One supervi- or preferences, more is needed than
1986; Ilgen et aI., 1979). To be consid- sor known to the author says that she information sharing and a conflict-
ered credible, one must have had the can always tell if her bank account resolution approach; in such a case,
opportunity and expertise necessary to with employees is overdrawn because conjoint problem solving, mediation,
assess the behavior accurately. This "either their eyes glaze over or they arbitration, bargaining, orcoercionmay
requirement usually is met by supervi- look stricken if I try to correct their be more appropriate (Egan, 1975;
sors who have observed a problem be- performance." Because corrective Rasmussen, 1984). For example, work-
havior directly and who by virtue of feedback is more likely to be remem- ers who wish to improve their inter-
their position may be considered able bered and mulled over than is sup- viewing skills may be grateful for cor-
to distinguish appropriate from inap- portive feedback, supervisors should rective feedback about their
propriate behavior. maintain a three-to-one ratio of de- performance, whereas those who think
Establishing a reputation for trust- posits to withdrawals by offering three that their interviewing skills are al-
worthiness is more difficult. Covey times the amount of supportive feed- ready up to par may be less receptive.
(1989) used the metaphor of an emo- back to corrective feedback. Heartfelt The supervisor must then decide which
tional bank account to describe how support and congratulations that are of the several conflict-resolution ap-
trust-or a feeling of safety with an- offered during an employee's peak proaches-rangingfrom conjoint prob-
other-is developed. Using this anal- performance will provide the emo- lem solving to ordering compliance-
ogy, a supervisor makes deposits into tional foundation of trust on which he or she will use to improve the
a subordinate's emotional bank ac- corrective feedback may be made, situation.
count through keeping commitments, understood, and accepted.
being honest, showing kindness and
Guideline 3
courtesy, seeking to understand the
Guideline 2
subordinate, conveying personal in- Give corrective feedback only if the
tegrity, and clarifying expectations. Give corrective feedback only ifyour receiver is likely to be able and willing
Withdrawals are made as the super- underlying motive is to help by provid- to take appropriate action. According
Latting / Giving Corrective Feedback: A Decisional Analysis 425
to BaIfulome (1986-1987), people tend
to believe that they have a duty to give
corrective feedback, even if the feed-
back may be ego threatening. As he
noted, those who are considering giv-
ing corrective feedback may be suscep-
tible to "hypnosis of the problem"-a
tendency to see a problem as being
greater than it actually is, to be blinded
to more positive aspects of the other
person's behavior, and to have an ex-
cessive belief in the accuracy of their
perceptions. They also tend to overesti-
mate their ability to predict and con-
trol the emotional reactions of the re-
ceiver, believing that they can handle
any potentiallynegative outcomes from
the feedback skillfully.
Because ofthis tendency, Bartolome
(1986-1987) recommended againstgiv-
ing feedback if it is likely to elicit
a strong negative reaction that may
override the potential benefits and if
it is not likely to elicit a positive change
in behavior. Similarly, Michaelsen and
Schultheiss (1988-1989) suggested
that the sender should not give feed-
back unless he or she knows that the
receiver desires it. Feedback about a
person's demographics (such as race or
gender) or physical appearance (height
or weight) or about incidents that can-
not be undone (a faulty presentation to
an important committee, for example)
is not likely to be well received. On the
other hand, feedback directed toward
future improvement (for instance, how
to enhance the presentation graphics)
may be accepted if the emphasis is
clearly on skill building rather than on
fault finding.
Unfortunately, supervisors usually
must take action if the problem be-
havior pertains to an employee's work
performance. To prepare the em-
ployee, the supervisor may indicate
that he or she has something to dis-
cuss and ask if the present or a later
time would be best for the employee.
(Supervisors who believe that their
authority is somehow undermined by
this question should reread the sec-
tion on emotional bank accounts in
the first guideline.) If the employee
implies that the feedback is not de-
sired at any time, then a conflict in
values or perspectives probably ex-
ists, and conflict resolution, rather
426
than corrective feedback, may be the conferences three times. This disturbs
more appropriate strategy. me; I am concerned about your cases.
What is going on?" (feedback based on
observed behavior).
Guideline 4
Clinically trained supervisors who
Consider whether the organizational have developed skills in assessing the
system is likely to reward the desired underlYing causes of behavior may be
behavior beforeyou give corrective feed- especially prone to offer their interpre-
back. A now-classic article described tations ofa subordinate's behavior. The
"the folly of rewarding A while hoping danger with attributive feedback in a
for B" (Kerr, 1975, p. 769). Supervisors nonclinical setting is that the receiver
who give corrective feedback to im- is likely to interpret it as punishing or
prove B (the quality of service, for ex- intrusive, the attribution itselfmay be
ample) are well advised to check in error, and the receiver's focus on the
whether the organization does not in accuracy or inaccuracy of the attribu-
fact reward A (the speedy resolution of tion is likely to obscure the real prob-
cases, for instance). If the organiza- lem-the effects ofthe behavior on the
tional reward system is working at supervisor or others. Furthennore, re-
cross-purposes with the intent of the search indicates that people are un-
feedback, no matter how commend- likely to be motivated to improve their
able the latter, the wise supervisor will perfonnance after receiving attribu-
attempt to figure out how to provide tive feedback and that their subse-
corrective feedback so that both A and quent perfonnance is likely to be im-
B may be achieved, or at least how to paired (Baron, 1988).
acknowledge openly the discrepancy Even if the supervisor studiously
between the organization's rewards for avoids making attributions, the re-
A and his or her preferences for B. ceiver may read between the lines
and hear implicit attributions
(Bartolome, 1986-1987). One way to
Deciding What to Say
avoid this problem is to provide com-
Once the supervisor decides to give parative or contextual information if
feedback, he or she must then decide the comparative feedback appears to
how to give it so it is helpful. The imply an external rather than inter-
supervisor should be descriptive, ex- nal cause for the poor performance
plain the behavior's consequences, help (Liden & Mitchell, 1985). Three types
the employee become self-correcting, of comparative feedback may be pro-
and ensure that the employee knows vided: (1) a comparison of the em-
what to do next. ployee's current to past performance
("This is the first time in two months
that you did not meet your interview
Guideline 5
quota"), (2) a comparison of the be-
Describe theproblem behavior. Avoid haviorinquestion with the employee's
attributions. Once the supervisor has perfonnance on related activities ("All
identified a reason to give corrective of your follow-up phone calls have
feedback, the next step is to plan the been made on time and your records
feedback on the basis of observed be- are up to date; this is the only area
havior, not on the basis of an attribu- that has a deficiency"), and (3) a com-
tion. Attributive feedback may be de- parison ofthe employee's performance
fined as feedback that is based on the with that of his or her peers (''No one
giver's interpretations of the causes of else met the quota this month either").
a behavior, rather than on the behav- If an external attribution for the prob-
ior itself. For example, a supervisor lem behavior is ~uggested (as in the
who is concerned about a worker's can- foregoing examples), the feedback is
cellations of several supervisory con- likely to be favorably received and the
ferences in a row may offer the feed- employee is likely to be motivated to
back in one oftwo ways: ''You appear to take corrective action(Liden & Mitchell,
be resisting supervision" (attributive 1985). In contrast, feedback that im-
feedback) or ''You have canceled our plies a consistent pattern of failure
Social Work / Volume 37, Number 5 / September 1992
("You have never been up to date in
your follow-ups, your performance is
deficient in other areas as well, and
your performance is the poorest in
your unit") is likely to be interpreted
as punishing and to result in discour-
agement or resentment, not positive
action.
Guideline 6
Explain the consequences of the be-
havior and your feelings about it. The
employee is more likely to understand
and act on corrective feedback if the
consequences of the behavior are ex-
plained (Fournies, 1978). For example,
an employee who receives feedback
about her excessive tardiness may se-
cretly think, ''Why is my supervisor
making a big deal out ofnothing? What
is 15 minutes anyway? The boss is
always on my case about some rule or
another." Only if she understands the
consequences of her tardiness on oth-
ers-co-workers, clients, and the su-
pervisor-will the reasoning behind
the rule make sense. In this scenario,
the effective supervisor may describe
patiently how co-workers feel it is a
burden to handle the tardy employee's
early morning calls, how awkward oth-
ers feel when they must ask clients
who call from a pay phone to call back
later, and how some co-workers are
beginning to interpret her continued
lateness as evidence of preferential
treatment. The supervisor may also
reveal how much she dislikes having to
handle these concerns.
Guideline 7
Provide sufficient specific informa-
tion so the receiver may become self-
correcting, but not so much informa-
tion as to be redundant. Other writers
(Hanson, 1975; Karp, 1987; Michael-
sen & Schultheiss, 1988-1989) have
stressed the importance ofbeing spe-
cific when giving corrective feedback.
Guideline 6 suggests that the feed-
back is adequately specific if it pro-
vides the employee with information
on how to act in the future without
counsel from the supervisor. The im-
portance to employees of indepen-
dence in performing tasks was re-
Latting / Giving Corrective Feedback: A Decisional Analysis
vealed in Greller's (1980) survey,
which found that employees were
more likely than their supervisors to
rate "comparisons you yourself make
of your work to that of others" and
"information you receive from doing
the work without anyone actually tell-
ingyou" as important sources offeed-
back (p. 25). Greller speculated that
this discrepancy may explain why em-
ployees reported feeling uninformed
about their performance, even though
their supervisors claimed otherwise.
The supervisors may have overesti-
mated the value of the feedback they
provided the employees and underes-
timated the value of feedback that
was under the employees' control.
To reduce dependence on the
supervisor's feedback, employees
must be provided with specific, infor-
mative feedback. Telling an employee,
"You didn't handle the Smith case in
a professional manner" conveys dis-
pleasure, but fails to help the em-
ployee become self-correcting. To be
more informative, the supervisor
should explain, "There is a difference
between threatening a client and
making sure she understands the con-
sequences ofnoncompliance with our
procedures. Often it is the tone of
voice. Threatening is unprofessional;
explaining logical consequences is
part of your job. I thought that your
tone of voice sounded threatening."
Giving information to the point of
redundancy, however, is likely to back-
fire. According to Ilgen et al. (1979),
redundant information reduces intrin-
sic motivation. Redundancy should
not be confused with clarification. Re-
dundancy occurs if the employee al-
ready knows the information that is
being provided; clarification occurs if
the information is provided but is not
well understood. The former is often
perceived as insulting and patroniz-
ing; the latter is illuminating. If the
supervisor feels the need to repeat
information previously provided, he
or she should assess whether the
employee truly does not understand
the feedback or does not accept it. In
the former instance, clarification is
called for; in the latter instance, the
employee has not accepted the feed-
back, and confrontation using one of
the conflict-resolution strategies may
be warranted.
Guideline 8
Emphasize desired, not undesired,
behaviors. Reinforcement theorists
note that behavioral change is more
likely to occur when desired behavior
is reinforced (''Your case records were
up to date for three weeks this
month!") than when the giver offeed-
back attempts to punish or negatively
reinforce undesirable behavior (''You
did not update your case entries this
week."). If an alternate behavior is
not clearly identified, the undesired
behavior may inadvertently be rein-
forced (Luthans & Kreitner, 1985),
or, equally disturbing, the corrected
employee may simply not know what
positive steps to take.
Karp (1987) suggested that the su-
pervisor should provide the alterna-
tive course of action. To help develop
the employee's own assessment and
self-corrective mechanism, the super-
visor should verify that a mutual un-
derstanding exists on the desired out-
come, suggest one course of action and
ask the employee for others, and decide
on a preferred course ofaction with the
employee.
Deciding How and When to
Give Feedback
The manner in which the feedback is
given often determines whether the
receiver will act on it or discount it.
Supervisors should be careful to con-
vey consideration of the employee, to
present the feedback as their percep-
tion, and to give the feedback privately
and as close to the time ofthe event as
possible.
Guideline 9
Give corrective feedback in a con-
siderate tone of voice using "[" rather
than "you/' messages. Few things are
more irritating and demotivatingthan
being harshly reprimanded. Harsh,
punishing feedback is likely to pro-
duce four undesirable side effects: (1)
recipients of such feedback are likely
to feel angry and resentful and even
427
to consider reprisals; (2) the behavior
that is punished usually stops only
temporarily and resumes once the
punishment has ceased; (3) the pun-
ishment itselfis a form ofreward and
attention that may be reinforcing; and
(4) supervisors who punish exten-
sively may themselves become
aversive and, consequently, ineffec-
tive in reinforcing desired behavior
(Luthans & Kreitner, 1985).
In consulting with human services
organizations over the years, the au-
thor has encountered numerous su-
pervisors who genuinely seemed un-
aware ofhow much their effectiveness
is undermined when they threaten or
speak sharply to their employees.
Many appear to equate employees'
fear with respect. Others are simply
unaware of the loudness or intensity
of their voices or the effect of their
pointing fingers. Their employees
are aware, however, and the effect on
the morale in some organizations has
been nearly palpable.
Research by Deci and Ryan (1985)
has demonstrated that intrinsic mo-
tivation diminishes as feedback is per-
ceived as controlling rather than in-
formational. Harsh feedback is almost
inevitably perceived as controlling and
thereby reduces the potential instruc-
tional quality of the information it
contains. Even more disastrous, re-
cipients ofthreatening and harsh feed-
back are likely to feel less capable of
performing subsequent tasks (Baron,
1988).
To help keep the feedback informa-
tional rather than controlling, the su-
pervisor must make an extra effort to
maintain consideration for the em-
ployee and to let that consideration
be reflected in his or her demeanor
and tone of voice. Owning one's
thoughts or feelings by using "I" mes-
sages is one way to do so. Saying
emphatically, but evenly, "This really
disturbs me; I am upset and angry. I
expected the report on my desk in
time for the meeting" is different from
yelling, "What's the matter with you,
anyway? You really messed things up
around here!" The punishing impact
ofthe latter message virtually demol-
ishes any informational feedback that
may have preceded it.
428
Guideline 10 as soon after the observed incident as
possible.
Give corrective feedback privately
and immediately, rather than pub-
Deciding How to Handle the
licly and belatedly. Corrective feed-
Receiver's Response
back should be given privately, never
publicly. Corrective feedback given The final steps are for the supervisor
publicly has several disadvantages. to solicit the employee's response and
First, such feedback may actually re- to be willing to be influenced by them.
inforce the undesired behavior by ac- If the employee offers no evidence to
tivating the receiver to demonstrate invalidate the feedback, the supervisor
to others present that he or she is not should verify that the employee agrees
subject to intimidation (Luthans & that a problem exists.
Kreitner, 1985). Second, those listen-
ing-particularly other subordi-
Guideline 11
nates-are likely to feel vicarious
embarrassment for the receiver ("The Ask for reactions; be willing to be
next time it could happen to me"), influenced. Nearly everyone experi-
resulting in withdrawals from their ences some degree of defensiveness or
emotional bank accounts. An excep- embarrassment when receiving cor-
tion is corrective feedback given in rective feedback (Rasmussen, 1984).
planned feedback sessions as part ofa Telling the receiver that the feedback
staff development program. In these is "growth producing" only begs the
instances, the feedback session should question. As Munson (1983) noted, prac-
be structured to ensure that all titioners often resist receiving a genu-
present receive feedback according to ine critical analysis oftheir work, even
the guidelines given here. after they ask for it. Consequently, the
Feedback should also be given as supervisor should be prepared for the
soon as possible afterthe behavior to be worker to respond with comments in-
commented on occurs. Delay in feed- dicating defensiveness, embarrass-
back may lead to faulty recollections ment, or even feedback offered in re-
about the behavior preceding the feed- turn ("Ifyou hadn't done X, I wouldn't
back and hence may render the feed- have done Y!"). By asking for reactions
back ineffective (Ilgen et al., 1979). and being open to even the defensive
Also, a delay may hamper the receiver's responses of the employee, the super-
ability to take corrective actions or to visor models the very behavior he or
improve his or her performance (Prue she wants the employee to exhibit-
& Fairbank, 1981). Most damaging, if receptivity to another's viewpoint.
feedback is delayed, the supervisormay Often the employee's initial defen-
have built up so much strong emotion siveness or retaliatory feedback may
that the feedback is delivered in a conceal a true lack of understanding
threatening or sarcastic manner. In about how to enact the desired behav-
such a case, the recipient is likely to ior. The supervisor should listen care-
experience negative feelings and to feel fully for indications that the employee
less capable ofperforming subsequent does indeed desire to improve his or her
tasks (Baron, 1988). performance, but that he or she lacks
On the other hand, immediate feed- some vital piece ofinformation on what
back may not always be possible be- exactly is required and how to achieve
cause the employee may be in the pres- it. For example, a supervisor recently
ence of others, which may cause confided to the author her amazement
embarrassment and violate the pri- at discovering that her secretary did
vacy requirement, or the supervisor not know how to use all the features of
may be physically separated from the the agency's copy machine. As she ex-
employee when she or he hears about plained, "I was always on her about
the behavior (Prue & Fairbank, 1981). how long it took her to make copies of
In these instances, the supervisor things. I thought that she was daw-
should arrange a time with the em- dling in the copy room to get away from
ployee to discuss the matter privately her work until one day I followed her
Social Work / Volume 37, Number 5 / September 1992
into the copy room and saw what she
was doing. Now I am embarrassed."
Being open to the employee's re-
sponses should not be confused with
abdicating one's supervisory responsi-
bility.Rather,itacknowledgesthatthe
feedback may be based on invalid in-
formation or on an error in the
supervisor's judgment. Another possi-
bility is that multiple, even conflicting
perspectives on a situation may be
valid. The effective supervisor seeks to
integrate the different perspectives
rather than to dichotomize or to recon-
cile them artificially (Havassy, 1990).
The employee's responses may be true
and valid for her or him, and no decep-
tion may be intended. The greater the
supervisor's ability to consider ''hoth-
and" rather than "either-or," the more
easily an understanding between the
supervisor and the employee is likely
to emerge on how to deal with the
problem.
Guideline 12
Seek agreement that a problem ex-
ists. This is the most difficult-and
overlooked-part of the feedback pro-
cess. Gaining agreement that a prob-
lem exists transforms the goal of the
feedback from rule (orbehavioral) com-
pliance to encouraging the employee to
assess his or her responsibilities and
how well they are being fulfilled
(Fournies, 1978). Unless the employee
acknowledges that a problem exists,
internalizationofthe desired standards
for behavior has not occurred.
At any point during the feedback
process, the employee may indicate
verbally that a problem exists. In the
absence of a clear verbal statement to
that effect, the supervisor is cautioned
against assuming that agreement has
occurred. Silence, head nods, or even
an agreement "to improve" may con-
note a desire to end the conversation,
not an agreement that there is a prob-
lem. A first step in gaining agreement
is to ask the employee to paraphrase
the feedback. The next step is to ask
the employee point-blank, "Do you
think that this is a problem?" If the
worker is able to restate the feedback,
but still does not agree that a problem
exists, the supervisor should seek to
Latting / Giving Corrective Feedback: A Decisional Analysis
understand the situation from the
employee's perspective. If, despite the
supervisor's best efforts, the employee
cannot agree that a problem exists,
then the supervisor should use a con-
flict-resolution strategy.
Conclusion
According to Deci and Ryan (1985),
the desire for competence and self-
control is a powerful motivational force.
The guidelines given here suggest
methods for giving corrective feedback
that increase the feedback receiver's
aspirations for competence and self-
control. Only by harnessing the
employee's desire for growth and im-
provement can the supervisor hope
that corrective feedback will be heard,
understood, accepted, and acted on.
References
Bannister, B. D. (1986). Performance out-
come feedback and attributional feed-
back: Interactive effects on recipient
responses. Journal ofApplied Psychol-
ogy, 71, 203-210.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of
destructive criticism: Impact on conflict,
self-efficacy, and task performance.Jour-
nal ofApplied Psychology, 7, 199-207.
Bartolome, F. (1986-1987). Teaching
about whether to give negative feed-
back. Organizational Behavior Teach-
ing Review, 11, 95-104.
Blanchard, K., & Johnson, S. (1982).
The one minute manager. New York:
Morrow.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of
highly effective people: Restoring the
character ethic. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic
motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Egan, G. (1975). The skilled helper.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Egan, G. (1985). Change agent skills in
helping and human service settings.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fournies, F. F. (1978). Coaching for im-
proved work performance. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
GreBer, M. M. (1980). Evaluation offeed-
back sources as a function of role and
organizational level. Journal ofApplied
Psychology, 65, 24-27.
Hanson, P. G. (1975). Giving feedback: An
interpersonal skill. In J. E. Jones &
J. W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1975 annual
handbook for group facilitators (pp. 147-
155). San Diego: University Associates.
Havassy, H. M. (1990). EffeCtive second-
story bureaucrats: Mastering the para-
dox of diversity. Social Work, 35, 103-
109.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S.
(1979). Consequences ofindividual feed-
back on behaviorin organizations. Jour-
nal ofAppliedPsychology, 64, 349-371.
Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A.,
& Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor
and subordinate reactions to perfor-
mance appraisal sessions. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 28, 311-330.
Karp, H. (1987). The lost art of feedback.
In L. D. Goodstein & J. W. Pfeiffer
(Eds.), The 1987 annual: Developing
human resources (pp. 262-266). San
Diego: University Associates.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding
A, while hoping for B. Academy ofMan-
agement Journal, 18, 769-783.
Kopelman, R. E. (1982-1983). Improving
productivitythrough objective feedback:
A review of the evidence. National Pro-
ductivity Review, 2, 43-55.
Latting, J. K. (1990). [Survey of employ-
ees in a local health organization]. Un-
published raw data.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1985).
Reactions to feedback: The role of attri-
butions.Academy ofManagement Jour-
nal,28, 291-308.
Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Orga-
nizational behavior modification and
beyond: An operant and social learning
approach. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J.
(1987). A meta-analytic study of the
effects of goal setting on task perfor-
mance: 1966-1984. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes,
39,52-83.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Schultheiss, E. E.
(1988-1989). Making feedback helpful.
Organizational Behavior Teaching Re-
view, 13, 109-113.
Munson, C. E. (1983). An introduction to
clinical social work supervision. New
York: Haworth Press.
Nadler, D. A. (1979). The effects of feed-
429
 back on task group behavior: A review
of the experimental research. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 23, 309-338.
Prue, D. M., & Fairbank, J. A. (1981).
Performance feedback in organization
behavior management: A review. Jour- Virginia Commonwealth University
nal ofOrganization Behavior Manage-
ment, 3, 1-16. School of Social Work
Rasmussen, R. V. (1984). Interpersonal
feedback: Problems and reconceptu- invites applications for its program
alization. In J. W. Pfeiffer & L. D. leading to the degree of
Goodstein (Eds.), The 1984 annual:
Developing human resources (pp. 262- DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
266). San Diego: University Associates.
Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1971). Fear of
• Clinical Social Work - emphasis on theory and research •
negative evaluation and the reluctance
• Social Policy - emphasis on development, analysis, implementation •
to communicate bad news. Proceedings
of the 79th Annual Convention of the For detailed information about this doctoral program and financial aid,
American Psychological Association, 6, write or call:
301-302.
Dr. Robert G. Green, Director
Doctoral Program in Social Policy and Social Work
Jean Kantambu Latting, DrPH, is As- School of Social Work
sociate Professor, Graduate School of Virginia Commonwealth University
Social Work, University of Houston, 1001 West Franklin Street
Houston, TX 77204-4492. Richmond, Virginia 23284-2027
(804) 367-9336
\ Il-'~ I ; ~ II

Accepted June 17, 1991

T
here are many difficulties in recommending that
aclient seek residential treatment -- especially if
the best program is far away.
But therapists again and again choose to send
their cI ients to The Renfrew Centers because of our
very specific expertise in women and eating disorders.
Here, each cI ient experiences an intensive therapeutic
program which combines a respect for the unique psy-
chology of women. the strength of acaring community
and the active participation of each resident in her own
recovery.
Our residential program, which has cared for over
2,000 women, can be an effective part of your client's
treatment. And, as part of that treatment, we'll keep you
in touch with your client's progress during her stay and
work with you to maintain that progress in the transition
to aftercare.
If you have aclient who could benefit from our pro-
gram, call one of our professional counselors for more
information and an assessment.
JCAHO Accredited THE
Most Insurance Accepted
RENFREW
The paper used in this publi- Attend The Renfrew foundation CENTER
cation meets the minimum re- Conference on \f The Country's First Residential Facilities
quirements of the American "Women: Sec.rets Se " (or the Treatment o( Women
National Standard for infor- d
and Eat'n2. R~~92ers with fating Disorders
mation science-permanence November 13,'i, ,
of paper for printed library EW
philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PA • Coconut Creek, FL
matenals, ANSI Z39.48-1984. Ca\\800~~ 1-800-RENFREW

430 Social Work / Volume 37, Number 5 / September 1992